If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
737 MMA
Question for the naval aviators: How is the new 737 MMA going to perform as the
P-3s replacement? I know it's bigger, carries more "stuff" and whatnot, but from what I know of jet engines (even high-bypass fans), won't it be very fuel INefficient in the same regime as the P-3 prowls? Cruising along at 1000' or so and around 200 KIAS? Or is the MMA going to be punching out sonobuoys from a much higher altitude and at a much higher speed? Is this aircraft the real answer or is it more taxpayer money into the gaping maw of the military-industrial copmplex? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"joelpac" wrote in message ... Question for the naval aviators: How is the new 737 MMA going to perform as the P-3s replacement? I know it's bigger, carries more "stuff" and whatnot, but from what I know of jet engines (even high-bypass fans), won't it be very fuel INefficient in the same regime as the P-3 prowls? Cruising along at 1000' or so and around 200 KIAS? Or is the MMA going to be punching out sonobuoys from a much higher altitude and at a much higher speed? Is this aircraft the real answer or is it more taxpayer money into the gaping maw of the military-industrial copmplex? I don't know why you couldn't drop them from 5000ft, I would imagine a drogue shoot of some kind would slow the impact enough, using the MAD might prove to be a problem as would dropping a million dollar torp a mile or maybe just bigger shoot for it also. As far as cruising they could feather an engine at 5k also, save alot of fuel. Maybe it is a better deal than what we have now, I don't know. But I do know that Boeing has fallen on hard times as late, between fuel prices and Airbuse abuse, not to mention the F-22 and the tanker deal. Could be a kind of bail-out. But to know that for sure you'd have to have some knowledge of the Elint package that would come with it and I haven't seen anything about that. It's also doubtful we ever will hear about that part of the deal, at least for quite a while anyway... T3 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
and Airbuse abuse,
=20 Les pauvres petits...D=E8s que la concurrence appar=E2it, ils deviennent = des=20 pleureurs.... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I suspect it's a political decision together with a improvement in
antisubmarine technology (space detection for instance). For sure political after the F-22 / KC-135 replacement program imbroglio. Strategic maybe in the sense of more rapid deployment with reasonable fuel efficiency (after all, it's a twin vs the P3's four engines), good patrol speed with slight flap deployment. Load carrying ability should be superb, so arm it to the friggin teeth and add more fuel, zip to the suspect area at jet speeds and saturate with sonobouys, etc. Pretty cool bird in my opinion. JD |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
If the Nimrod is used as a comparison losses in fuel economy at low
speed / loiter are to be balanced by the reduced transit times and economy of fuel usage in transit. Of course the Nimrod has 4 engines and does indeed shut 2 down when loitering in an area. JD wrote: I suspect it's a political decision together with a improvement in antisubmarine technology (space detection for instance). For sure political after the F-22 / KC-135 replacement program imbroglio. Strategic maybe in the sense of more rapid deployment with reasonable fuel efficiency (after all, it's a twin vs the P3's four engines), good patrol speed with slight flap deployment. Load carrying ability should be superb, so arm it to the friggin teeth and add more fuel, zip to the suspect area at jet speeds and saturate with sonobouys, etc. Pretty cool bird in my opinion. JD |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The British Nimrod seems to work OK.
On 26 Jun 2004 19:36:06 -0700, joelpac wrote: Question for the naval aviators: How is the new 737 MMA going to perform as the P-3s replacement? I know it's bigger, carries more "stuff" and whatnot, but from what I know of jet engines (even high-bypass fans), won't it be very fuel INefficient in the same regime as the P-3 prowls? Cruising along at 1000' or so and around 200 KIAS? Or is the MMA going to be punching out sonobuoys from a much higher altitude and at a much higher speed? Is this aircraft the real answer or is it more taxpayer money into the gaping maw of the military-industrial copmplex? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
joel- Question for the naval aviators: How is the new 737 MMA going to
perform as the P-3s replacement? BRBR Better kitchen, prettier 'stews', bigger microwave and vault for the perdium $$. P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Plus in-flight movies!
If they're anything like those we had on the ship they'll suck - or they'll be the same movie for five hops in a row. g -- Mike Kanze "[Michael] Moore is Jane Fonda in baggy clothes." - H. M. Stumpf, 6/23/04 letter to SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE "Jim McCartan" wrote in message om... (Pechs1) wrote in message ... joel- Question for the naval aviators: How is the new 737 MMA going to perform as the P-3s replacement? BRBR Better kitchen, prettier 'stews', bigger microwave and vault for the perdium $$. P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer Plus in-flight movies! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Mike- If they're anything like those we had on the ship they'll suck - or
they'll be the same movie for five hops in a row. BRBR Good ole days, when the moovie was the big reel type, lights out, at 2100, after last event manned up. P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|